Are people just nowfiguring out that i have no interest in talking about things that i agree with everyone on? If i wanted to do that there are thousands of threads that i could pollute with "exactly" and "+1". Yes if im talking about something, my opinion is going to be made clear. And yes i argue a point that i dont exactly hold in some cases. This is probably one of those. Im not on the players side. Im definitely against people who are on the owners side though.

Idoit40fans wrote:Are people just nowfiguring out that i have no interest in talking about things that i agree with everyone on? If i wanted to do that there are thousands of threads that i could pollute with "exactly" and "+1". Yes if im talking about something, my opinion is going to be made clear. And yes i argue a point that i dont exactly hold in some cases. This is probably one of those. Im not on the players side. Im definitely against people who are on the owners side though.

Its also possible for you to be factually wrong, contradict yourself, and make uninformed assumptions. Proof is throughout this thread.

I'm on the owner's side and always will be. As been said, the player's knew what they were getting when they hired Fehr. If the player's representative was anyone besides Fehr then hockey would of been started back in Oct.

SolidSnake wrote:I'm on the owner's side and always will be. As been said, the player's knew what they were getting when they hired Fehr. If the player's representative was anyone besides Fehr then hockey would of been started back in Oct.

I am on the owners side also, but you do have to ask your self, yes the game might be back on the ice but what kind of deal would the players of gotten. I think most of us can agree we would like to see a fair deal. But both sides are not working towards that. Both sides keep tugging and pulling to tip the scales their way. If there was a easy formula to figure a fair deal this would be alot easier. Fehr isn't working to a fair deal, he wants blood and you can see that with the other leagues he delt with. But the owners don't even know what a deal is, they had a chance 6 year ago to fix this and couldn't even do it. Half of the owners loses are self inflicted. They are all business men, sucessful business men. but none of them know that money in should be alittle more than money out.

My beef with the owners: This should of been a easy negotiation 50/50 split with some meaningful revenue sharing... everything else could of stayed they same. That 7% back in the owners pockets is alot of money if they can't right their own ships with that extra money they shouldn't be running a franchise. But asking a owners to hold back and not sign a player for some crazy contract is asking to much. Of course the player is gonna sign it is money in his pocket. But each owner is competting vs each other and at times it all about winning to them and not about paying the right ammount of money.

My beef with the players: They play a sport for a living, you get paid millions and get these beautiful women. And we the fans pay your salary, i think you owe a little to us. NBC paid alot of money for a tv contract, why?? Cause we the fans watch TV. That new contract means nothing with our support behind it. Take your millions and live in your beautiful houses, while we scrounge around a few bucks to watch you play.

yeah i am just a little sick of all this.

Last edited by no name on Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SolidSnake wrote:I'm on the owner's side and always will be. As been said, the player's knew what they were getting when they hired Fehr. If the player's representative was anyone besides Fehr then hockey would of been started back in Oct.

I am on the owners side also, but you do have to ask your self, yes the game might be back on the ice but what kind of deal would the players of gotten. I think most of us can agree we would like to see a fair deal. But both sides are not working towards that. Both sides keep tugging and pulling to tip the scales their way. If there was a easy formula to figure a fair deal this would be alot easier. Fehr isn't working to a fair deal, he wants blood and you can see that with the other leagues he delt with. But the owners don't even know what a deal is, they had a chance 6 year ago to fix this and couldn't even do it. Half of the owners loses are self inflicted. They are all business men, sucessful business men. but none of them know that money in should be alittle more than money out.

The last deal should have been fair, but it turned out to be a limited risk event for players, and the NHL suffered financially as a result -- not necessarily as a result of the amount the owe to players, necessarily, but revenues were unpredictable. Couple that with a not-so-hot 10 year TV deal and a series of bankruptcies and near misses, and its not a money maker for anyone but wage-earners. Agree that the owners are to blame for their own misfortune, but their targets are long-term, and that reflects in the deal they are seeking with the players; a reset in the near term, and an expected share of the growth with players. I actually think that part of the issue is that any single deal will not benefit a majority of owners.

In the one articles it says the NHLs CBA suggested for this next season Columbus and Winnipeg would switch divisions. (since all games would be intra-confrence.) I would guess the season after that they would ask for the new 4 confrence setup. One which i have to admit i like alot.

no name wrote:In the one articles it says the NHLs CBA suggested for this next season Columbus and Winnipeg would switch divisions. (since all games would be intra-confrence.) I would guess the season after that they would ask for the new 4 confrence setup. One which i have to admit i like alot.

That would be a good idea. Since Columbus is somewhat close to the SE division and been wanting to move out of the WC, this would be a good move. I still don't like the four conference setup though.

I was on the owners' side about the main issue: money. 50/50 was necessary and the players fought it for way too long. And it was shortsighted because they were fighting for money that their bosses couldn't continue to afford to pay them. When the money is split right, the league is healthier, and the revenue will come back to a point where salaries are back to where they are now in short order.

The "make whole" money is the give the players get on the 50/50 to compensate them for it.

At this point, I am disappointed in both sides for holding up the season for details. Contract length, the back diving contracts, etc. Both sides being so heels in the sand over these issues is annoying. They money is set... get playing already! I can't side with the players or owners now that the main issue is sorted out.

As a side note, let's cut using the words "good faith" or "bad faith." The context being used by everyone in this thread makes no sense. All parties are negotiating in good faith during this process, they are just fighting for what they want. Both the NHLPA and NHL want an agreement to happen (the terms are what's up in the air); therefore, they are negotiating in good faith. It would be nearly impossible to be in "bad faith" in this whole process unless the players really didn't want to play for the NHL anymore as a whole or the owners really didn't want the players to play for them anymore.

bhaw wrote:I was on the owners' side about the main issue: money. 50/50 was necessary and the players fought it for way too long. And it was shortsighted because they were fighting for money that their bosses couldn't continue to afford to pay them. When the money is split right, the league is healthier, and the revenue will come back to a point where salaries are back to where they are now in short order.

The "make whole" money is the give the players get on the 50/50 to compensate them for it.

At this point, I am disappointed in both sides for holding up the season for details. Contract length, the back diving contracts, etc. Both sides being so heels in the sand over these issues is annoying. They money is set... get playing already! I can't side with the players or owners now that the main issue is sorted out.

As a side note, let's cut using the words "good faith" or "bad faith." The context being used by everyone in this thread makes no sense. All parties are negotiating in good faith during this process, they are just fighting for what they want. Both the NHLPA and NHL want an agreement to happen (the terms are what's up in the air); therefore, they are negotiating in good faith. It would be nearly impossible to be in "bad faith" in this whole process unless the players really didn't want to play for the NHL anymore as a whole or the owners really didn't want the players to play for them anymore.

Yeah, good faith/bad faith is just more fairy tale stuff. Its just part of negotiating.

no name wrote:In the one articles it says the NHLs CBA suggested for this next season Columbus and Winnipeg would switch divisions. (since all games would be intra-confrence.) I would guess the season after that they would ask for the new 4 confrence setup. One which i have to admit i like alot.

That would be a good idea. Since Columbus is somewhat close to the SE division and been wanting to move out of the WC, this would be a good move. I still don't like the four conference setup though.

What is the new 4 conference set-up? I can't remember how they would set the teams up.

Not to put to fone a point on it but... The whole 'good faith' / 'bad faith' negoitating issue is based on whether or not there was/is a desire by either side to resolve the situation at the bargaining table or force the issue into the court system.

Just wanted to make sure the context was understood. Seems there was a lot of confusion on the board over what the term means in the context of a labor negotiation.

SolidSnake wrote:I'm on the owner's side and always will be. As been said, the player's knew what they were getting when they hired Fehr. If the player's representative was anyone besides Fehr then hockey would of been started back in Oct.

I am on the owners side also, but you do have to ask your self, yes the game might be back on the ice but what kind of deal would the players of gotten. I think most of us can agree we would like to see a fair deal. But both sides are not working towards that. Both sides keep tugging and pulling to tip the scales their way. If there was a easy formula to figure a fair deal this would be alot easier. Fehr isn't working to a fair deal, he wants blood and you can see that with the other leagues he delt with. But the owners don't even know what a deal is, they had a chance 6 year ago to fix this and couldn't even do it. Half of the owners loses are self inflicted. They are all business men, sucessful business men. but none of them know that money in should be alittle more than money out.

My beef with the owners: This should of been a easy negotiation 50/50 split with some meaningful revenue sharing... everything else could of stayed they same. That 7% back in the owners pockets is alot of money if they can't right their own ships with that extra money they shouldn't be running a franchise. But asking a owners to hold back and not sign a player for some crazy contract is asking to much. Of course the player is gonna sign it is money in his pocket. But each owner is competting vs each other and at times it all about winning to them and not about paying the right ammount of money.

My beef with the players: They play a sport for a living, you get paid millions and get these beautiful women. And we the fans pay your salary, i think you owe a little to us. NBC paid alot of money for a tv contract, why?? Cause we the fans watch TV. That new contract means nothing with our support behind it. Take your millions and live in your beautiful houses, while we scrounge around a few bucks to watch you play.

yeah i am just a little sick of all this.

...well spoken.

the only thing i would say is that while the union plays a sport for a living and gets paid millions of dollars, in this negotiation i don't think they can really do anything for the fans without simply giving in to the owners. i understand that in itself may be a concession (for instance, the PA can say "hey, this is good enough...we got a pretty good life as it is so why rock the boat") - i just take exception that a major benefit of such concession (money) goes to the owners -- who themselves should have had a plan as you outlined which would have also put the fans first (but they didn't). it's not like the PA or NHL is saying, "players go from 57% to 47% if 3% of the NHL revenue goes to the make a wish foundation". i wish they did -- i REALLY wish they did -- but this has been a money thing between the PA and the NHL with clearly the fans left on the outside.

I at least feel like the union has tried a few things such as the charity game for hurricane Sandy -- which the NHL obstructed as much as they can. In the end, though, the fans have been left out.

Abe Frohman: GUYS do you REALIZE how SERIOUS the SITUATION HERE is right NOW? The players have the OWNERS backs against the WALL, and DONALD Fehr won't STOP until THE OWNERS cave or the league goes to COURT and dissolves the UNION.

no name wrote:In the one articles it says the NHLs CBA suggested for this next season Columbus and Winnipeg would switch divisions. (since all games would be intra-confrence.) I would guess the season after that they would ask for the new 4 confrence setup. One which i have to admit i like alot.

That would be a good idea. Since Columbus is somewhat close to the SE division and been wanting to move out of the WC, this would be a good move. I still don't like the four conference setup though.

What is the new 4 conference set-up? I can't remember how they would set the teams up.

PittburghWashingtonNY islandersNY RangersNJPhiladelphiaCarolina

Boston MontrealOttawaFloridaTampa bayBuffaloToronto

LASJVanvcouverAnaheimPhpenixcoloradoCalgaryEdmonton

DetroitSt. LouisNashvilleDallasChicagoWinnipeg MinnisodaColommbus

4 confrences, you play a home and away vs out of your confrence. and about 6 interconfrence games vs thoes teams. top 4 from each confrence make the playoffs. 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3, winner wins the confrence. Thenconfrence remaining teams are seeded by season points, 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3 until a winner gets the cup.

interstorm wrote:Uhh..I agree with the article author. If the owners would have just jumped to this offer to begin with, we would be talking about playoff races now. Right now it looks like it took fehr to get them there. Then again, the owners did get a half year reprieve from paying salaries. Time will tell if any damage done to the brand was worth that.

Come on. Fehr was the one who refused to meet with the NHL for a year and a half, only to contact them right before the deadline (which I believe was his method of trying to pressure them into making a quick deal). All this should have been done a year ago and it is all on Fehr why there wasn't enough time before the new season was to start. I do not feel the league should have began a season under same CBA guidelines as the previous season.

And, no, it wasn't worth it. It's a horrible thing they - let's say both sides - did to the reputation of the league and to the fanbase.

Fehr did, however, admit that he needed that time because he had no knowledge of hockey, the NHL, or the NHLPA.

And yes, there is plenty of blame to go around - most of which goes on Fehr's games and the NHL's unwillingness to negotiate.